Pluralism and Egalitarianism in Education

People aren't equal. It seems to me that the first thing that has to happen, should American education wish to improve dramatically, is acceptance and embracing of the first statement in this piece. Because people aren't equal, the primary directive of education must be to stop adhering to the fallacy that all people are capable of the same degree of development and production.

Let's suppose, briefly, that people were born and endowed with congruent capacities. Even if this were true, so long as humans have free will, and personal taste and interests, a simple fact of life is that each person follows his drives and ambitions, and that those ambitions are diverse and often elusive. Consequently, building an educational process that pretends to level the playing field, or to equal the opportunities for all, is destined to relative failure.

Before the reader jumps the gun and presumes that I will be advocating the adoption of a European system of education, let me state definitively that I am not. Neither am I opposed to such a program. If we tend in that direction, I am supportive of the approach, but only if we rethink what we want our schools to do.

Most schools are currently constituted, whether they admit it or not, to a standard belief in liberal arts education, even through K-12, though we use the term primarily in regard to college. What I mean is that the program of studies from primary to secondary school is built upon a set of values that says all students need exposure to quality literature, higher math, and serious science. I don't believe they do.

Here's the problem with my own theory: children haven't developed their minds, their tastes, and their genuine preferences until sometime in late middle school or early high school. Thus the problem is how to maintain a wealth of exposures and experiences that will help them know how to make their individual paths?

What I propose is as follows. K-8th grade should be comprised of less formalized study of any discipline. Since my background is in English, I will look first at the language arts curriculum.

Currently, 4th through 8th graders spend a great deal of time trying to grasp the principles of grammar, the rudimentary concepts of literature, and a working understanding of how to express themselves in writing. The system I propose will have students, based on their working understanding of language, avoiding the mention of a an infinitve, subject/verb agreement, or even proper nouns. Instead, their study of grammar will focus solely on learning a multitude of ways to say the same thing. They will learn usage and grammar through experimentation with language.

Their study of literature will be similarly delivered. No child will hear about Freytag's Pyramid. They will learn some of the jargon of lterary study, but the objective will not be deliberately built upon application of any of those terms. Instead, they will be asked to propose causes and effect of various choices, devices, and/or purposes. They will be asked to make inferences, distinguish fact from opinion, and generally connect the texts to what they already know. The acquisition of vocabulary and literary language will be a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.

The same concepts will hold true in other disciplines. Before high school, working with the material ought to be the aim. Hypothesizing, proposing, noticing, and responding to information will be the activity, since those things will support all of the standards and benchmarks as currently written. Take a look at the standards and see if you can make the connection. Not one standard specifies that anyone know the 'rules' of the short story, or the particulars of a verse form, or name an author or character from a story.

I don't think the social studies curriculum should change dramatically through these grade levels. As it stands, social studies in 4th through 8th is focused on acquisition of knowledge, and the management of information is also a skill that needs to be given some play. Let social studies be in charge of the focus on that skill.

Math creates a headache, and probably requires the largest change. Having reached middle age, I can attest to the relative lack of importance of higher math skills for me and a majority of people. By higher math skill, I mean calculus and the far end of trigonometry.

The current Pennsylvania test of math proficiency suggests that dexterity with algebra is the end game of math instruction. Consequently, schools should "require" no math instruction after a student has acquired algebra facility. Understaning of higher level math is a valuable thing for a good many people, but the school program should be set up to accommodate only those people who are interested and driven. Even four year colleges have changed their math requirements. Thirty years ago, my college demanded that I tackle calculus, along with all my peers. I have had no use for it since. In fact, when I have been in contact with calculus in the interim, I remember almost nothing. That forgetfulness has not been to my detriment.

The same can be said for science. Let's demand scientific acumen only for those who are inclined in that direction. lord knows that our world needs chemists and physicists, and multitudes of engineers. The point is that those needs may be met, and more progress made, if we rid the chem and physics classrooms of the undermotivated and disinterested.

The next installment will discuss how schools can channel students into tracks or paths that suit their needs.